The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1887-12-15

The Courts are not bound by mere
forms, nor are they to be misled by
mere pretenses. They are all at lib
erty, indeed are under solemn duty,
to look at the substance of things
whenever they enter upon the inquiry
whether the Legislature has trans
cended the limits of its authority. If,
therefore, statute purporting to have
been enacted to protect the public
health. the public morals or the pub
lie safety has no real or substantial re-
| latinn to those objects, or is a palpa-
bic invasion of rights secured by the
fundamental law, it is the duty of the
Courts to so adjudge, and thereby give
effect to the constitution.
Keeping in view these principles,
as governing the relations with each
other of the judicial and legislative
departments of Government, it is diff
ticult to perceive any ground for the
judiciary to declare that the prohibi-
| ton by Kansas Of the manufacture
or sale within her limits of intoxicat-
ing liquors for general use there as a
beverage, is not fairly adapted to the
end of protecting the community
against. the evils which confessedly
result from the excessive use Of ardent
spirits.
There is here no justification for
holding that the State. under the guise
merely of police regulations, is aiming
to deprive the citizen of his constitu-
tional rights; for we can not shut out
of view Che fact, within the knowl-
edge of all, that the public health,
the public morals, and the public
safety, may be endangered by the
general use of Intoxicating drinks.
Nor can we ignore the fact, establish
ed by statistics, accessible to every
one. hat the disorder. pauperism and
crive prevalent in the country are in
large measure directly traceable to
this evil. If, therefore, State deems
the absolute prohibition of the
manufacture and sale within her linn
its of Intoxicating liquors for other
thang medical, scientific and manu-
featuring purposes, to be necessary to
the peace and security of society, the
Courts can not, without usurping
legislative functions, override the will
OF the people as thus expressed by
their chosen representatives. 1t is
fundamental principle in our institu-
tions indispensable to the preservation
Of public liberty, that one of the
separate departments of Government
shall not nsurp powers committed by
the constitution to the Legislature to
manufacture of intoxicating liquors
for the makers own use as a beverage
would tend to cripple if not defeat
her efforts to guard the community
against the evils attending, the ex-
cessive use of such liquors, it is not
for the Courts, upon their views as to
munity, to disregard the Legislative
determination of that question. So
far from such regulation being in
appropriate to the general end sought
to be accomplished, it is easy to be
seen that the entire scheme Of Prohibi-
tion, as embodied in the constitution
and laws of Kansas, might fail if the
right of each citizen to manufacture
Intoxicating liquors for his own use
as a beverage were recognized. Such
right does not inhere in citizenship.
Nor can it be said that the Govern
ment interferes with or impairs any
ones constitutional rights Of liberty
or of property when it determines
that the manufacture and sale of
Intoxicating drinks for general or
individual use as beverage are or
may become hurtful to society and
to every member of it, and is, there
fore, a business in which no one can
lawfully engage.
This conclusion is unav oidable, un-
less. the Fourteenth Amendment Of
the constitution takes from the States
of the Union those powers Of police
that were reserved at the time the
original constitution was adopted
But this Court has declared, upon full
consideration Tin Barber VS.. Connolly,
113 u. S. 81 that the Fourteenth
Amendment had no such effect
With reference to the assertion
that the prohibition of the manufac-
ture and sale Of liquor deprives liquor
dealers of their property without due
process of law, the Court says that all
property under our form of govern
ment is subject to the obligation that
it shall not be used so as to injuriously
affect the rights Of the community
and thereby become nuisance. The
State of Kansas had right to pro-
hlbit the liquor traffic 1t did not
thereby take away the property Of the
brewers. It simply abated nuisance.
The property is not taken away from
its owners; they are only prohibited
from using it for specific purpose
which the Legislature declared to be
injurious to the community.
| IT,. H. xoooon o4,4oJ ,,,,o TIo1,oo
Harlan, we are of opinion that Mugler,
the plaintiff in error, has not been
denied by the judgments of the
Supreme Court of Kansas any right,
privilege or immunity secured to him
by the constitution Of the United
States, and its judgment in each case
is accordingly affirmed We are also
Of opinion that the Circuit Court of
the United States erred in dismissing
the hill of the State in her suit against
Ziebold and Hagelin The decree in
that case is reversed and the cause
remanded, with directions to enter
decree granting to the State such
relief as the act Of March Z, 1885,
authorizes.
A DISSENT.
Justice Field concurred in the
opinions, so far as it related to the two
cases in which the State Of Kansas
was defendant, but dissented as to the
case of the State Of Kansas VS.. Ziebold.
He agreed, he said, to so much Of the
opinion as sustains the validity Of the
act of Kansas prohibiting the sale of
intoXicants which are manufactured
in the State after the passage of the
act.
He was not prepared, however, to
say that the prohibition of the